Thought #1 - It might be nice to see a breakdown of the reputation of
a 'controversial' node, with both ++ and -- votes (say a
node with more than one of both). It's quite likely that
such a node merits further discussion :-)

Thought #2 - You can vote on a node, no matter how ancient
it is. I suspect people very rarely vote on a node once it
gets old. As the reputation of a node may be useful in
helping someone searching the archives for an answer to
a question, it would be good if the voting system timed
out, and you could see the reputation for all nodes over,
say, one month old, but no longer vote on them.

I disagree with the second suggestion. The value of
certain nodes doesn't erode over time. People who are
discovering these nodes for the first time or who are
using them for the first time should be able to vote on
them. This is especially true because more people are
voting now, so older nodes look undervalued in comparision
to new ones.

Haven't you ever run across a topic you knew nothing about,
and so ignored, only to find yourself later dealing with
it, going back to the related nodes, and finding a great
deal of useful information? Haven't you ever searched
for information on a topic, only to find just what you
needed in a node that was created before you joined?

I want the ability to vote for a good node regardless of its
age. I don't know how many people do go through the
archives looking for interesting old nodes, but I'm one
person who does.

The point of the second suggestion was not to devalue old
nodes, but rather to help people searching the archives
judge which answers to a question are the best - if you
don't know about a subject, you will have difficulty telling the difference between a good answer and a great answer - though I imagine the really bad answers will tend to speak for themselves (or have helpful followups)

It would just be a helpful cue to people who are new here or who are new to a subject as to which answers in the archives are the best or most helpful (or at least, those that other people think are the best or most helpful :-)

I must admit, I'm with kudra on this one.
I often search for answers to problems I'm experiencing, and that search often leads me to old nodes. If I find something that I think is insightful and/or particularly good, then I will vote ++ for it.
I see your point about being able to see the results of the voting and agree that it would be useful if you are trying to gauge the 'importance' of a node, but I think withdrawing the ability to vote on that node will just remove the ability for a monk to show his appreciation to the author.
As you suggest I think that the 'greatness' of the node can be gauged by the comments attached to it and the reader, whether a newbie or not, should be able to judge for themselves.

Comment on #2: I like being able to go vote on old nodes. Take
for example SuperCruncher's Sexiest Women node. I want to
be able to go back and vote it down hopefully pushing it
onto the Worst Node list.

Update: Poor example. What I believe about a certain
node is irrelevant. My point is that I like being able to
go back to old stuff. I often miss nodes and find myself
leafing through old ones. If I find a great one I want to be
able to add my ++ no matter how old. Or my -- if that
is the case.

Hmm, right idea, wrong reason, I feel. I think SuperCruncher's
node was misguided but not really bad enough to justify
a jihad against it. Worst nodes should get there of their
own accord - this is the reason we don't get to see
reputations before we vote on a node, and the reason for
the caveat at Best Nodes.

I don't think there should be a contest about voting nodes onto the Worst Nodes. Of course, SuperCrunchers post was a possible offending post, as it did not talk that much about Cool Uses For Perl, but was more an advertisement of his site. But that does not justify ganging together just to put the node up onto the Worst Nodes. If you, for yourself, look at a node and think you want to waste a -- vote on it, that's OK. But you should never vote negative on a node, just because it already is on the Worst Nodes.

On #2 I think we could even out the 'goodness' of older versus newer nodes by making a weighted 'goodness' index. Ideally we would want this index to be the number of votes the post has received versus the number of people (of qualified voters) who have seen it. Since we probably don't have a record of the latter then we could divide by some other number akin to it. Example: